Carson v. Verismart Software, Inc. et al

Filing 132

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 127 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 FLETCHER CARSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 No. C 11-03766 DMR ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A FINDING OF CONTEMPT OF COURT BY DEFENDANT RAFF v. 14 VERISMART SOFTWARE, et al., 15 Defendants. ___________________________________/ 16 17 This matter comes before the court on pro se Plaintiff Fletcher Carson’s Motion to Request a 18 Finding of Contempt of Court by Defendant Raff and His Legal Counsel and Imposition of 19 Sanctions (“Motion for Contempt”). [Docket No. 127.] The court conducted a hearing on August 20 23, 2012, during which the parties were given an opportunity to present oral argument. For the 21 reasons below, the court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt. 22 23 I. Background On June 1, 2012, the parties participated in a settlement conference before the undersigned 24 that resulted in a settlement agreement between Plaintiff and all defendants, including Defendant 25 Carl Raff. [Docket No. 120 (Civil Conference Minute Order, June 1, 2012); Honea Decl. ¶ 2.] At 26 the conclusion of the conference, the parties placed the material terms of the confidential agreement 27 on the court’s recording system. Although the parties entered into a binding and enforceable 28 contract on the record, they also indicated that they intended to reduce the terms to writing. The 1 parties gave the undersigned full and binding authority to resolve any drafting disputes. The parties 2 also requested that the case be reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes. The court entered an 3 Order Re Sealed Transcript, requiring that any transcript of the settlement proceeding be filed and 4 maintained under seal. [Docket No. 121.] The court did not enter any other orders regarding the 5 settlement agreement. 6 Plaintiff Carson now moves for a finding of contempt of court by Defendant Raff and his 7 attorneys based on Raff’s alleged failure to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. 8 Specifically, Plaintiff requests the court find Raff and his attorneys in contempt for “willful, 9 premeditated, and continuing refusal to comply with an order of this court contained in a sealed transcript of the Settlement Conference” held by the parties on June 1, 2012. Plaintiff also requests 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 sanctions. (Pl.’s Mot. 3.) 12 13 II. Discussion To obtain a civil contempt citation, the moving party must show by clear and convincing 14 evidence that the opposing party violated a specific and definite order of the court. See In re 15 Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). If the 16 moving party makes the clear and convincing showing, the burden shifts to the party allegedly in 17 contempt to show that it cannot comply. See U.S. v. Montgomery Global Advisors, No. C04-00733 18 EDL, 2005 WL 2249092, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2005). 19 Here, Plaintiff has not shown that Raff and his attorneys “violated a specific and definite 20 order of the court,” because the court did not enter an order directing Raff or any other party to 21 comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff argues that “[s]ince this court was 22 provided with binding authority to decide upon any language disagreements between the parties in 23 drafting an acceptable Settlement Agreement, this court ordered Defendant Raff to perform as 24 outlined” on the record by June 30, 2012. (Pl.’s Mot. 3.) However, the court did not order any of 25 the parties to perform. Neither the agreement of the parties to have the court resolve any drafting 26 disputes nor the placement of the terms of the settlement agreement on the record resulted in a court 27 order to comply with the terms of the parties’ agreement. While Raff’s alleged failure to comply 28 with the terms of the settlement agreement may be enforced as a breach of that agreement, there was 2 1 no court order requiring Raff or his counsel to do anything. Accordingly, as Plaintiff cannot show 2 that Raff violated a “specific and definite order of the court,” his Motion for Contempt is denied. 5 Dated: August 24, 2012 7 RT 8 10 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court ER H 9 LI NO DONNA M. RYU M. Ryu Donna United States dge Ju Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 A 6 D RDERE OO IT IS S R NIA UNIT ED S IT IS SO ORDERED. RT U O 4 S DISTRICT TE C TA FO 3 N F D IS T IC T O R C

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?